Here is the rebuttal you requested. I have one condition. Get a blog up and running so I can call you something other than Anon.. OK?
"There are pictures of the terrorists passing through security at the airports"
No there are not. Just one of Atta. Of course, this picture was released long after 9-11 and the chain of custody goes right through Stratesec, the Company run by Marvin Bush till 2000 (although he is still highly involved and invested) which conveniently ran Security at The World Trade Complex, Dulles Airport, United Airlines and American Airlines on and before 9-11-01.
"Clinton gave no bid contracts to Halliburton as well. Don't remember any complaints about that."
I bitched. At the end of '91 Cheney began his 'Privatization' of military services. Although he called it downsizing, it was immediately apparent that we were getting a whole lot less for a lot more money. When Cheney took the helm at Halliburton, conflict of interest flags went up everywhere. Lacking the Internet, they were just hard to see.
"Cheney quit Halliburton in 2000 so are you implying that he got rich because they do?"
He kept his Profit sharing and Stock investments. So yes, not only is it implied that he got rich with them, it is a proven fact.
"Halliburton was guaranteed only a 1 percent profit plus performance bonuses of 2-3 percent. Ooooo an embarrassment of riches, eh?"
An embarrassment all around, 'cost plus one' means that for every dollar they spend, they get one cent. Sounds good, unless you add up all the money they spent in order to increase their revenue. Sure, 5k hotdogs at $.05 apiece is nothing, but 5k at $1.00 apiece is 50 bucks. Multiple inquiries into their purchasing show a constant trend of going to the highest priced dealer for everything. In 2003, with gas going for $.30 a gallon in Iraq, they purchased it in Kuwait at $1.37 a gallon then charged transportation costs. So not only are they getting more than they should in revenue, they are bankrupting the US taxpayer to do it.
"30,000-100,000 dead Iraqis? Could you give me a more vague number? I'll give you the beneft of the doubt and lets "say" that 100,000 Iraqis have been killed. Keep in mind that the US didn't kill all of them. Remember, the bad guys are killing people too! So far, we have found the mass graves of roughly 300,000 Iraqis that Saddam murdered."
For starters let's cover the mass graves and other atrocities of the 1991 uprising.
Kurdish Revolt 1991- Encouraged by the stunning defeat of Saddam's forces in Kuwait and spurred by appeals by President George H. W. Bush of the U.S., Kurds rose up against the Iraqi government With the bulk of his elite forces having escaped from the fighting in Kuwait and southern Iraq, Saddam was able to quell the revolt, causing hundreds of thousands of Kurdish refugees to flee into neighboring Turkey and Iran to escape.
Shiite Revolt 1991- Encouraged by the stunning defeat of Saddam's forces in Kuwait and spurred by appeals by President George H. W. Bush of the U.S., the Shiites of southern Iraq rose up against the Iraqi government, only to be crushed by Saddam's forces. Sporadic guerrilla resistance continued, with the bulk of the Shiite fighting forces seeking refuge in neighboring Shiite Iran.
That's the synopsis of the events. Here's the story of, not only, the Bush hand in inspiring the revolts, but also the Bush hand in filling up all those empty graves. As you read, pay attention to the fact that even though the Coalition had orders to take out any Iraqi military air units flying, the US Military stood down and allowed the Iraqi gun ships to take control of the Southern Cities and decimate them.
No military in the air, on the ground MF in the gulf may actively engage any targets with hostility and may only activate for humanitarian and emergency missions with the permission of the Coalition command.
Here are some Kurdish perspectives on what they considered to be an illegal failure to provide promised support when called upon.
And of course, an overview of the events which took place, the resulting mass graves, and the reason why the mass graves are not sufficient reason for US intervention over a decade later.
"Let's put the casualties in perspective. During WWII there were 1,840,000 civilians killed in Germany alone. Roughly 700,000 in Japan. While every human life is precious, I'd say wa are doing an outstanding job of keeping the casualties low compared to other wars."
Utter bullshit! First, crime does not excuse crime. John Wayne Gacy killed 52 kids. With your logic, someone could kill 20 and avoid prosecution due to it being less heinous of a crime. That and you forgot a very important detail; In WWII we were fighting against a nation that attacked us and its Treaty Bound Allies. We invaded Iraq. That makes us the aggressors and War Criminals by International Law which we helped write and are signatories of. If we had not invaded, this would not be happening. Get it?
"As for the WMDs, like I said before, it is hilarious to me that you guys find it so hard to believe that Saddam could have gotten rid of them during the year that we fucked around with the UN and Europe before going in."
I have no problem believing that. If indeed that is what happened, why did we invade? We said disarm or we attack. You are speculating that he disarmed within the timeframe we gave him. By your own statement, he fulfilled the conditions of our ultimatum. Why did we go to war?
"But somebody shows you a fuzzy picture of sunlight reflecting off the bottom of one of the planes crashing into the WTC and its "ZOMG!!! YOU GUYS THERES A FUCKING MISSLE ON THE BOTTOM OF THE PLANE11!!!! BUUUUUUSH DID IT!!!!111!!!"
I do not suggest this. I suggest, that of the theories explaining the collapses of 9-11, only controlled demolition has been shown to be physically capable of doing it. I am not alone in this.
"Ok NORAD. On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network MF alarm automatically alerted NORAD of missing planes. It doesn't work that way. You guys act like they scramble planes everyday."
Everything you put in this paragraph is false. Amazing consistency of failure, but I am sure you have heard that before (In Bed).
"I'm not going to go through a timeline with you because all of the conspiracy theorys use different ones and I'm sure the official report isn't going to be good enough for you since it shows that NORAD didn't have enough time to get planes to the WTC."
It is actually the other way around. The Official Timeline has three lines.
"WTC7 - Pretty simple. For one, it burned for like 7 hours. On top of that, Tower one collapsed raining debris down on the south face of it. The fire, a little dammage from the collapse coupled with a design flaw, down you go."
You are unbelievable. A building, the only on of its kind to ever collapse from fire, is pretty simple for you. What was the design flaw? Or did you just make that up?
No, this building fell at free fall velocity into its own footprint and exhibited every characteristic of a controlled demolition. Add to that the admission of its owner of ordering it pulled, and it is pretty simple to make a case for investigating it. The 9-11 Commission (All the President's Men) did not even deem it worthy of mention and 60% of this country still have not heard of it. That kills the Commission's credibility.
"I'm actually a little pissed that I have taken this much time to type all this up seeing as how I'm sure none of this will satisfy any of you. It's funny that the rest of us are expected to believe everything that you guys come up with but anytime we try to refute your claims you have the convenience of stating that the media, the gov't, the gov't's experts, or anyone that doesn't agree with you, is lying or "in on the conspiracy."
We agree on one thing. I am also pissed that you took the time and the energy required to type up this laundry list of ignorant speculation, outright lies and vaguely relevant trivia, without having the decency to do even a half assed fact check on your own spew. From your first sentence, your own link contradicted your claim. You are a part, of a loud group of people who
Are not in on anything with the Media.
Are not part of a Government conspiracy.
Are not 'slaves.'
Are not Secret Agents
You simply believe yourself to be less ignorant than you actually are. If you are too lazy to do the research and to stupid to do the math, please be considerate enough to stay out of the debate. Yes, you might look like an idiot to some people for your silence, but you look like an idiot to everyone when you break that silence.
Thursday, February 23, 2006